Chapter XXXIV.—Moses, Allowing Divorce, and Christ Prohibiting It, Explained. John Baptist and Herod. Marcion’s Attempt to Discover an Antithesis in the Parable of the Rich Man and the Poor Man in Hades Confuted. The Creator’s Appointment Manifested in Both States.

But Christ prohibits divorce, saying, “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, also committeth adultery.”2482    Luke xvi. 18. In order to forbid divorce, He makes it unlawful to marry a woman that has been put away. Moses, however, permitted repudiation in Deuteronomy: “When a man hath taken a wife, and hath lived with her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found unchastity in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement and give it in her hand, and send her away out of his house.”2483    Deut. xxiv. 1. You see, therefore, that there is a difference between the law and the gospel—between Moses and Christ?2484    A Marcionite challenge. To be sure there is!2485    Plane. But then you have rejected that other gospel which witnesses to the same verity and the same Christ.2486    St. Matthew’s Gospel. There, while prohibiting divorce, He has given us a solution of this special question respecting it: “Moses,” says He, “because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to give a bill of divorcement; but from the beginning it was not so”2487    Matt. xix. 8.—for this reason, indeed, because He who had “made them male and female” had likewise said, “They twain shall become one flesh; what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”2488    Matt. xix. 4, 6. Now, by this answer of His (to the Pharisees), He both sanctioned the provision of Moses, who was His own (servant), and restored to its primitive purpose2489    Direxit. the institution of the Creator, whose Christ He was. Since, however, you are to be refuted out of the Scriptures which you have received, I will meet you on your own ground, as if your Christ were mine. When, therefore, He prohibited divorce, and yet at the same time represented2490    Gestans. the Father, even Him who united male and female, must He not have rather exculpated2491    Excusaverit. than abolished the enactment of Moses?  But, observe, if this Christ be yours when he teaches contrary to Moses and the Creator, on the same principle must He be mine if I can show that His teaching is not contrary to them. I maintain, then, that there was a condition in the prohibition which He now made of divorce; the case supposed being, that a man put away his wife for the express purpose of2492    Ideo ut. marrying another. His words are: “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, also committeth adultery,”2493    Luke xvi. 18.—“put away,” that is, for the reason wherefore a woman ought not to be dismissed, that another wife may be obtained. For he who marries a woman who is unlawfully put away is as much of an adulterer as the man who marries one who is un-divorced.  Permanent is the marriage which is not rightly dissolved; to marry,2494    Nubere. This verb is here used of both sexes, in a general sense. therefore, whilst matrimony is undissolved, is to commit adultery. Since, therefore, His prohibition of divorce was a conditional one, He did not prohibit absolutely; and what He did not absolutely forbid, that He permitted on some occasions,2495    Alias. when there is an absence of the cause why He gave His prohibition. In very deed2496    Etiam: first word of the sentence. His teaching is not contrary to Moses, whose precept He partially2497    Alicubi. defends, I will not2498    Nondum. say confirms. If, however, you deny that divorce is in any way permitted by Christ, how is it that you on your side2499    Tu. destroy marriage, not uniting man and woman, nor admitting to the sacrament of baptism and of the eucharist those who have been united in marriage anywhere else,2500    Alibi: i.e., than in the Marcionite connection. unless they should agree together to repudiate the fruit of their marriage, and so the very Creator Himself? Well, then, what is a husband to do in your sect,2501    Apud te. if his wife commit adultery? Shall he keep her? But your own apostle, you know,2502    Scilicet. does not permit “the members of Christ to be joined to a harlot.”2503    1 Cor. vi. 15. Divorce, therefore, when justly deserved,2504    Justitia divortii. has even in Christ a defender. So that Moses for the future must be considered as being confirmed by Him, since he prohibits divorce in the same sense as Christ does, if any unchastity should occur in the wife. For in the Gospel of Matthew he says, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.”2505    Matt. v. 32. He also is deemed equally guilty of adultery, who marries a woman put away by her husband.  The Creator, however, except on account of adultery, does not put asunder what He Himself joined together, the same Moses in another passage enacting that he who had married after violence to a damsel, should thenceforth not have it in his power to put away his wife.2506    Deut. xxii. 28, 29. Now, if a compulsory marriage contracted after violence shall be permanent, how much rather shall a voluntary one, the result of agreement! This has the sanction of the prophet: “Thou shalt not forsake the wife of thy youth.”2507    Mal. ii. 15. Thus you have Christ following spontaneously the tracks of the Creator everywhere, both in permitting divorce and in forbidding it. You find Him also protecting marriage, in whatever direction you try to escape. He prohibits divorce when He will have the marriage inviolable; He permits divorce when the marriage is spotted with unfaithfulness. You should blush when you refuse to unite those whom even your Christ has united; and repeat the blush when you disunite them without the good reason why your Christ would have them separated. I have2508    Debeo. now to show whence the Lord derived this decision2509    Sententiam. of His, and to what end He directed it.  It will thus become more fully evident that His object was not the abolition of the Mosaic ordinance2510    Literally, “Moses.” by any suddenly devised proposal of divorce; because it was not suddenly proposed, but had its root in the previously mentioned John. For John reproved Herod, because he had illegally married the wife of his deceased brother, who had a daughter by her (a union which the law permitted only on the one occasion of the brother dying childless,2511    Illiberis. [N.B.  He supposes Philip to have been dead.] when it even prescribed such a marriage, in order that by his own brother, and from his own wife,2512    Costa: literally, “rib” or “side.” seed might be reckoned to the deceased husband),2513    Deut. xxv. 5, 6. and was in consequence cast into prison, and finally, by the same Herod, was even put to death. The Lord having therefore made mention of John, and of course of the occurrence of his death, hurled His censure2514    Jaculatus est. against Herod in the form of unlawful marriages and of adultery, pronouncing as an adulterer even the man who married a woman that had been put away from her husband. This he said in order the more severely to load Herod with guilt, who had taken his brother’s wife, after she had been loosed from her husband not less by death than by divorce; who had been impelled thereto by his lust, not by the prescription of the (Levirate) law—for, as his brother had left a daughter, the marriage with the widow could not be lawful on that very account;2515    The condition being that the deceased brother should have left “no child” see (Deut. xxv. 5). and who, when the prophet asserted against him the law, had therefore put him to death. The remarks I have advanced on this case will be also of use to me in illustrating the subsequent parable of the rich man2516    Ad subsequens argumentum divitis. tormented in hell, and the poor man resting in Abraham’s bosom.2517    Luke xvi. 19–31. For this passage, so far as its letter goes, comes before us abruptly; but if we regard its sense and purport, it naturally2518    Ipsum. fits in with the mention of John wickedly slain, and of Herod, who had been condemned by him for his impious marriage.2519    Suggillati Herodis male maritati. It sets forth in bold outline2520    Deformans. the end of both of them, the “torments” of Herod and the “comfort” of John, that even now Herod might hear that warning:  “They have there Moses and the prophets, let them hear them.”2521    Luke xvi. 29. Marcion, however, violently turns the passage to another end, and decides that both the torment and the comfort are retributions of the Creator reserved in the next life2522    Apud inferos. [Note the origin of this doctrine.] for those who have obeyed the law and the prophets; whilst he defines the heavenly bosom and harbour to belong to Christ and his own god. Our answer to this is, that the Scripture itself which dazzles2523    Revincente: perhaps “reproves his eyesight,” in the sense of refutation. his sight expressly distinguishes between Abraham’s bosom, where the poor man dwells, and the infernal place of torment.  “Hell” (I take it) means one thing, and “Abraham’s bosom” another. “A great gulf” is said to separate those regions, and to hinder a passage from one to the other. Besides, the rich man could not have “lifted up his eyes,”2524    Luke xvi. 23. and from a distance too, except to a superior height, and from the said distance all up through the vast immensity of height and depth. It must therefore be evident to every man of intelligence who has ever heard of the Elysian fields, that there is some determinate place called Abraham’s bosom, and that it is designed for the reception of the souls of Abraham’s children, even from among the Gentiles (since he is “the father of many nations,” which must be classed amongst his family), and of the same faith as that wherewithal he himself believed God, without the yoke of the law and the sign of circumcision. This region, therefore, I call Abraham’s bosom. Although it is not in heaven, it is yet higher than hell,2525    Sublimiorem inferis. [Elucidation VIII.] and is appointed to afford an interval of rest to the souls of the righteous, until the consummation of all things shall complete the resurrection of all men with the “full recompense of their reward.”2526    Compare Heb. ii. 2 with x. 35 and xi. 26. This consummation will then be manifested in heavenly promises, which Marcion, however, claims for his own god, just as if the Creator had never announced them.  Amos, however, tells us of “those stories towards heaven”2527    Ascensum in cœlum: Sept. ἀνάβασιν εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, Amos ix. 6. See on this passage the article Heaven in Kitto’s Cyclopædia (3d edit.), vol. ii. p. 245, where the present writer has discussed the probable meaning of the verse. which Christ “builds”—of course for His people.  There also is that everlasting abode of which Isaiah asks, “Who shall declare unto you the eternal place, but He (that is, of course, Christ) who walketh in righteousness, speaketh of the straight path, hateth injustice and iniquity?”2528    Isa. xxxiii. 14–16, according to the Septuagint, which has but slight resemblance to the Hebrew. Now, although this everlasting abode is promised, and the ascending stories (or steps) to heaven are built by the Creator, who further promises that the seed of Abraham shall be even as the stars of heaven, by virtue certainly of the heavenly promise, why may it not be possible,2529    Cur non capiat. without any injury to that promise, that by Abraham’s bosom is meant some temporary receptacle of faithful souls, wherein is even now delineated an image of the future, and where is given some foresight of the glory2530    Candida quædam prospiciatur: where candida is a noun substantive (see above, chap. vii. p. 353). of both judgments? If so, you have here, O heretics, during your present lifetime, a warning that Moses and the prophets declare one only God, the Creator, and His only Christ, and how that both awards of everlasting punishment and eternal salvation rest with Him, the one only God, who kills and who makes alive.  Well, but the admonition, says Marcion, of our God from heaven has commanded us not to hear Moses and the prophets, but Christ; Hear Him is the command.2531    There seems to be here an allusion to Luke ix. 35. This is true enough. For the apostles had by that time sufficiently heard Moses and the prophets, for they had followed Christ, being persuaded by Moses and the prophets. For even Peter would not have been able2532    Nec accepisset. to say, “Thou art the Christ,”2533    Luke ix. 20. unless he had beforehand heard and believed Moses and the prophets, by whom alone Christ had been hitherto announced.  Their faith, indeed, had deserved this confirmation by such a voice from heaven as should bid them hear Him, whom they had recognized as preaching peace, announcing glad tidings, promising an everlasting abode, building for them steps upwards into heaven.2534    See Isa. lii. 7, xxxiii. 14 (Sept.), and Amos ix. 6. Down in hell, however, it was said concerning them: “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them!”—even those who did not believe them or at least did not sincerely2535    Omnino. believe that after death there were punishments for the arrogance of wealth and the glory of luxury, announced indeed by Moses and the prophets, but decreed by that God, who deposes princes from their thrones, and raiseth up the poor from dunghills.2536    See 1 Sam. ii. 6–8, Ps. cxiii. 7, and Luke i. 52. Since, therefore, it is quite consistent in the Creator to pronounce different sentences in the two directions of reward and punishment, we shall have to conclude that there is here no diversity of gods,2537    Divinitatum; “divine powers.” but only a difference in the actual matters2538    Ipsarum materiarum. before us.

CAPUT XXXIV.

«Sed Christus divortium prohibet, dicens: Qui dimiserit uxorem suam, et aliam duxerit, adulterium committit: qui dimissam a viro duxerit, aeque adulter est. Ut sic quoque prohibeat divortium, illicitum facit repudiatae matrimonium. Moyses vero permittit repudium in Deuteronomio (Deut., XXIV, 1): Si sumpserit quis uxorem, et habitaverit cum ea, et evenerit non invenire eam apud eum gratiam, eo quod inventum sit in illa impudicum negotium, 0442Ascribet libellum repudii, et dabit in manu ejus, et dimittet illam de domo sua. Vides diversitatem Legis et Evangelii, Moysi et Christi?» Plane. Non enim recepisti illud quoque Evangelium (Matth., XIX, 8) ejusdem veritatis, et ejusdem Christi, in quo prohibens divortium, propriam quaestionem ejus absolvit: Moyses propter duritiam cordis vestri praecepit libellum repudii dare; a primordio autem non fuit sic, quia scilicet qui marem et foeminam fecerat, Erunt duo, dixerat, in carne una ; quod Deus itaque junxit, homo disjunxerit ? Hoc enim responso, et Moysi constitutionem protexit, ut sui; et Creatoris institutionem direxit, ut Christus ipsius. Sed quatenus ex his revincendus es, quae recepisti, sic tibi occurram, ac si meus Christus. Nonne et ipse prohibens 0442B divortium, et patrem tamen gestans eum qui marem et foeminam junxit, excusaverit potius quam destruxerit Moysi constitutionem? Sed ecce sic tuus sit iste Christus contrarium docens Moysi et Creatori, ut si non contrarium ostendero, meus sit. Dico enim illum conditionaliter nunc fecisse divortii prohibitionem, si ideo quis dimittat uxorem, ut aliam ducat: Qui dimiserit, inquit, uxorem, et aliam duxerit, adulterium commisit, et qui a marito dimissam duxerit, aeque adulter est; ex eadem utique caussa , qua non licet dimitti, ut alia ducatur: illicite enim dimissam pro indimissa ducens, adulter est. Manet enim matrimonium quod non rite diremptum est. Manente matrimonio nubere, adulterium est. Ita si conditionaliter prohibuit dimittere uxorem, non in totum 0442C prohibuit; et quod non prohibuit in totum, permisit alias, ubi caussa cessat ob quam prohibuit. Etiam non contrarium Moysi docet, cujus praeceptum alicubi conservat, nondum dico, confirmat. Aut si omnino negas permitti divortium a Christo, quomodo tu nuptias dirimis, nec conjungens marem et foeminam, nec alibi conjunctos ad sacramentum baptismatis et Eucharistiae admittens, nisi inter se conjuraverint adversus fructum nuptiarum, ut adversus ipsum Creatorem? Certe quid facit apud te maritus, si uxor ejus commiserit adulterium? habebitne illam? Sed nec tuum apostolum sinere scis conjungi prostitutae membra Christi. Habet itaque et Christum assertorem justitia divortii. Jam hinc 0443A confirmatur ab illo Moyses, ex eodem titulo prohibens repudium, quo et Christus, si inventum fuerit in muliere negotium impudicum. Nam et in Evangelio Matthaei (Matth., V, 32): Qui dimiserit, inquit, uxorem suam praeter caussam adulterii, facit eam adulterari; atque itaadulter censetur et ille, qui dimissam a viro duxerit. Caeterum, praeter ex caussa adulterii, nec Creator disjungit, quod ipse scilicet conjunxit, eodem alibi Moyse constituente (Deut., XXII, 28) eum qui ex compressione matrimonium fecerat, non posse dimittere uxorem in omne tempus. Quod si ex violentia coactum matrimonium stabit, quanto magis ex convenientia voluntarium? sicut et prophetiae auctoritate (Mal., II, 15): Uxorem juventutis tuae non dimitte. Habes itaque Christum ultro vestigia 0443B ubique Creatoris ineuntem, tam in permittendo repudio, quam in prohibendo. Habes etiam nuptiarum quoquo velis prospectorem, quas nec separari vult, prohibendo repudium, nec cum macula haberi, tunc permittendo divortium. Erubesce non conjungens, quos tuus quoque Christus conjunxit. Erubesce etiam disjungens sine eo merito, quo disjungi voluit et tuus Christus. Debeo nunc et illud ostendere, unde hanc sententiam deduxerit Dominus, quove direxerit. Ita enim plenius constabit, eum non ad Moysen destruendum spectasse per repudii propositionem subito interpositam; quia nec subito interposita est, habens radicem ex eadem Joannis mentione. Joannes enim retundens Herodem, quod adversus legem uxorem fratris sui defuncti duxisset, habentis filiam ex illa, 0443C (non alias hoc permittente, imo et praecipiente lege (Deut., XXV), quam si frater illiberis decesserit, ut a fratre ipsius et ex costa ipsius supparetur semen illi) conjectus in carcerem fuerat, ab eodem Herode postmodum et occisus. Facta igitur mentione Joannis, Dominus, et utique successus exitus ejus, illicitorum matrimoniorum et adulterii figuras jaculatus est in Herodem; adulterum pronuntians etiam qui dimissam a viro duxerit; quo magis impietatem Herodis oneraret, qui non minus morte quam repudio dimissam a viro duxerat; et hoc fratre habente 0444A ex illa filiam, et vel eo nomine illicite; ex libidinis, non ex legis instinctu; ac propterea propheten quoque assertorem legis occiderat. Hoc mihi disseruisse proficiet, etiam subsequens argumentum divitis apud inferos dolentis, et pauperis in sinu Abrahae requiescentis. Nam et illud, quantum ad Scripturae superficiem, subito propositum est, quantum ad intentionem sensus, et ipsum cohaeret mentioni Joannis male tractati, et suggillatui Herodis male meritati , utriusque exitum deformans, Herodis tormenta, et Joannis refrigeria; ut jam audiret Herodes: Habent illic Moysen et Prophetas, illos audiant. Sed Marcion aliorsum cogit, scilicet utramque mercedem Creatoris, sive tormenti, sive refrigerii apud inferos, determinat eis positam 0444B qui Legi et Prophetis obedierint, Christi vero et Dei sui coelestem definit sinum et portum. Respondebimus, et hac ipsa scriptura revincente oculos ejus, quae ab inferis discernit Abrahae sinum pauperi. Aliud enim inferi, ut puto, aliud quoque Abrahae sinus. Nam et magnum ait intercedere regiones istas profundum, et transitum utrinque prohibere. Sed nec allevasset dives oculos, et quidem de longinquo, nisi in superiora, et de altitudinis longinquo, per immensam illam distantiam sublimitatis et profunditatis. Unde apparet sapienti cuique, qui aliquando Elysios audierit, esse aliquam localem determinationem, quae sinus dicta sit Abrahae, ad recipiendas animas filiorum ejus, etiam ex nationibus, patris scilicet multarum nationum in Abrahae censum 0444C deputandarum, et ex eadem fide, qua et Abraham Deo credidit, nullo sub jugo legis, nec in signo circumcisionis. Eam itaque regionem, sinum dico Abrahae, etsi non coelestem, sublimiorem tamen inferis, interim refrigerium praebituram animabus justorum, donec consummatio rerum resurrectionem omnium plenitudine mercedis expungat; tunc apparitura coelesti promissione quam Marcion suo vindicat, quasi non a Creatore promulgatam. Ad quam ascensum suum Christus aedificat in coelum, secundum Amos (Amos, IX, 6); utique 0445A suis, ubi est locus aeternus, de quo Isaias (Is. XXXIII, 14): Quis annuntiabit vobis locum aeternum, nisi scilicet Christus incedens in justitia, loquens viam rectam, odio babens injustitiam et iniquitatem? Quod si aeternus locus repromittitur, et ascensus in coelum aedificatur a Creatore, promittente etiam semen Abrahae velut stellas coeli futurum, utique ob coelestem promissionem, salva ea promissione, cur non capiat sinum Abrahae dici temporale aliquod animarum fidelium receptaculum, in quo jam delinietur futuri imago, ac candida quaedam utriusque judicii prospiciatur? Admonens quoque vos haereticos, dum in vita estis, Moysen et prophetas unum Deum praedicantes Creatorem, et unum Christum praedicantes ejus, et utrumque judicium, 0445B poenae et salutis aeternae, apud unicum Deum positum, qui occidat et vivificet. Imo, inquit, nostri Dei monela de coelo, non Moysen et prophetas jussit audiri, sed Christum: Hunc audite. Merito. Tunc enim apostoli satis jam audierant Moysen et prophetas, qui secuti erant Christum, credendo Moysi et prophetis. Nec enim accepisset Petrus dicere: Tu es Christus, antequam audivisset et credidisset Moysi et prophetis, a quibus solis adhuc Christus annuntiabatur. Haec igitur fides eorum meruerat, ut etiam voce coelesti confirmaretur, jubente illum audiri, quem ergo agnoverant, evangelizantem pacem, evangelizantem bona, annuntiantem locum aeternum, aedificantem illis ascensum suum in coelum (Is. LII, 7; XXXIII, 14; Am. IX, 6). Apud inferos autem de eis dictum est; 0445CHabent illic Moysen et prophetas, audiant illos (Luc. XVI, 29); qui non credebant, vel qui nec omnino sic credebant esse post mortem superbiae divitiarum, et gloriae deliciarum supplicia annuntiata a Moyse et prophetis: decreta autem ab eo Deo, qui (Ps. CXII, 6) de thronis deponit dynastas, et de sterculiniselevat inopes. Ita cum utrinque pronuntiationis diversitas competat Creatori, non erit divinitatum statuenda distantia, sed ipsarum materiarum.